Answers in Genesis has an article on how "evolution is not even a theory". There's no time stamp on the article so I don't know how old it is. I have to assume it's at least a year old, but that's besides the point.

Let's start with the positive: AiG seem to have learnt what a theory is and they're actively discouraging people from using "just a theory" as an argument. Their reason isn't a good one, but we'll get to that.

A theory has its genesis in a hypothesis, which is a working assumption as to why we observe something—an educated guess. To test this assumption, scientists conduct experiments that either disprove or correlate with the hypothesis.

Over time, if a hypothesis continues to stand up to scrutiny and many different experiments, the scientific community may begin referring to it as a “theory.” In essence, this means that because the hypothesis has not been disproved over many years and no other known hypothesis works, then we can be reasonably sure that it’s accurate.

Theories, however, are not imperishable. If new technology allows better experimentation, for example, a theory may need to be discarded. (See Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs).

This is highly refreshing! They actually know the difference between hypothesis and theory and they know that there's a scientific definition of what a theory is. They also accept that a theory is the highest level of confidence to be achieved in science. The "Louis Pasteur article" they link to is garbage, but let's not dwell on that.

Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.

Some point to natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.

When talking about "events in the past", creationists are talking about so-called "origins" or "historical" science. This is a concept not used by any scientist I know of, but they pretend it's valid anyway. It's an idea I'll address in my half-finished blog post.

Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.

This is what I want to address. It is distinctly odd for creationists to make such a claim. Normally, they agree that, if evolution were true, life should look one way and if creationism were true, it should look completely different. Of course, they then turn around and claim that we don't see what is right before our eyes.

And yet, this is apparently what this creationist claims. There is not a single "test for evolution" I can think of that would make me think: "Hm, this might also fit with creationism, it's really 50/50."

Let's try to take this seriously for a minute and think for example of the aforementioned example: Tiktaalik. If everything we know about the age of the earth and evolution is wrong, then it strikes me as extremely unlikely that scientists could predict where, in what time frame and with what characteristics a fossil should be found. How would creationists claim that this can also be interpreted as evidence for creation or for something else? Generally, they just dismiss the whole thing and claim that "evil evolutionists" are wrong in what they claim. Never have I seen them take a find at face value and say: "Yeah, that's exactly what we'd expect if creationism were true."

For example, take this post from AiG on the latest find regarding Tiktaalik. They just dismiss it and claim that Shubin is wrong in his claims.

So I now ask you people: Have you ever heard of a single example where creationists take a discovery at face value and then claim that it fits perfectly with creationism? Moreover, is there a single example of those where they could actually be right?

I highly doubt it and since the author gives no examples, I have to put it to you.

A second article linked to a video/DVD asking four apparently powerful questions to ask an "evolutionist".

The first three are fairly standard:

Where did the universe’s original matter come from?

How did life begin?

Where are all the supposed transitional fossils between the Precambrian and Cambrian periods?

All of these have been answered, either by saying "here's the evidence" or by saying "we simply don't know, but neither does the question have anything to do with evolution, nor does a lack of evidence mean you can fill the gap with whatever fairytale most appeals to you".

The three first questions are fairly standard, but they at least are talking points. You can have a discussion with the person asking them, because they are questions even non-creationists might ask. The fourth question is just plain dumb:

Where did the dinosaurs come from?

Are you kidding me? This is a "powerful question"? Anyone who knows anything about the discussion at hand knows what the answer will be: "They evolved. Whoop-dee-fucking-do!" They might as well have asked "where did dogs come from" or any other animal or group of animals that's extant or extinct. There is an interesting discussion to be had about dinosaurs and I'll address that in a future blog post, but that's a different story.

"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

Inferno wrote:So I now ask you people: Have you ever heard of a single example where creationists take a discovery at face value and then claim that it fits perfectly with creationism? Moreover, is there a single example of those where they could actually be right?

I highly doubt it and since the author gives no examples, I have to put it to you.

Well, the discovery of soft tissue in fossil material from the Mesozoic is something that creationists take at face value and claim it fits with young earth creationism. However, they ignore everything else about the fossils, including the absolute dating methods, and try to dismiss it all by claiming, “soft tissue cannot last that long, it is common sense.”

There was also the findings of the ENCODE consortium which claimed that 80%(+) of our DNA was functional. Creationists took that at face value and have never let go of it. Even after several wonderful blogs pointed out just how wrong ENCODE was to begin with.

Inferno wrote:This is highly refreshing! They actually know the difference between hypothesis and theory and they know that there's a scientific definition of what a theory is. They also accept that a theory is the highest level of confidence to be achieved in science. The "Louis Pasteur article" they link to is garbage, but let's not dwell on that.

I disagree, they still don't know what it is. From their own words, they think that a theory is an hypothesis that has been promoted after many experiments that failed to disprove it over many years, which is WRONG!It's a collection of knowledge of knowledge classified under a topic. Like thermodynamic theory, there is no such thing as a thermodynamic hypothesis that has been promoted. Thermodynamics is the study of how energy changes. It encompasses many things like statistical mechanics applied to atomic elements under the influence heat, kinetic transference between corpuscular entities, it encompasses subjects in which we are very confident that we know something about like the law of conservation of energy or the law of lower bound to the progression of entropy over time (a.k.a. the second law of thermodynamics).Evolutionary theory also encompasses many subjects like genetics, reproduction strategies, morphology, biological development and environmental factors, biochemistry, it encompasses subjects like punctuated equilibrium, and it even encompasses the phenomena of evolution. Evolution and evolutionary theory are not to be confused, while one is the phenomena, the other is the body of knowledge applied to and seen from the respective of the phenomena.

"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!

AIG might be wrong about certain things but so are evolutionists.I think they are both wrong,young earthers are wrong about the age of the universe and earth but evolutionists are wrong about life evolving.

abelcainsbrother wrote:AIG might be wrong about certain things but so are evolutionists. I think they are both wrong,young earthers are wrong about the age of the universe and earth but evolutionists are wrong about life evolving.

Highlighted the important bit. Sadly, you're entirely wrong about that.

"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

abelcainsbrother wrote:AIG might be wrong about certain things but so are evolutionists. I think they are both wrong,young earthers are wrong about the age of the universe and earth but evolutionists are wrong about life evolving.

Highlighted the important bit. Sadly, you're entirely wrong about that.

It has only ever been assumed by scientists as they have never demonstrated life evolves.Evolution is based on a bunch of evidence that jumped over demonstrating life evolves,they never did because they feel no real threat to evolution from young earth creationism,they are fueled into believing they are right because young earthers are wrong about the age of the earth.

It has only ever been assumed by scientists as they have never demonstrated life evolves.Evolution is based on a bunch of evidence that jumped over demonstrating life evolves,they never did because they feel no real threat to evolution from young earth creationism,they are fueled into believing they are right because young earthers are wrong about the age of the earth.

For example, if a fish were born with arms, would that be evolution?If a single celled organism became multi-celled, would that be evolution?If humans would become resistant to a certain disease, would that be evolution?

The problem is that you don't even begin to understand what evolution is and what it isn't. By every definition used, evolution has been demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt.

"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

It has only ever been assumed by scientists as they have never demonstrated life evolves.Evolution is based on a bunch of evidence that jumped over demonstrating life evolves,they never did because they feel no real threat to evolution from young earth creationism,they are fueled into believing they are right because young earthers are wrong about the age of the earth.

For example, if a fish were born with arms, would that be evolution?If a single celled organism became multi-celled, would that be evolution?If humans would become resistant to a certain disease, would that be evolution?

The problem is that you don't even begin to understand what evolution is and what it isn't. By every definition used, evolution has been demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Evolution would be the definition for evolution by scientists which is a certain group of life evolving and changing into other kinds of life over time.None of the example you gave would show or demonstrate life evolves they would show deformities,reproduction or adaptation in which life never evolves despite deformities,reproduction or adaptation.We do not doubt reality we know about variations in reproduction and that life can adapt but this is not evidence life evolves.

It would seem to me based on the evidence that scientists use as evidence for evolution in the lab is that when they see variations in reproduction or observe that life can adapt they believe this is evidence life evolves.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Evolution would be the definition for evolution by scientists which is a certain group of life evolving and changing into other kinds of life over time.

What does "kinds" mean?

It means that God made the life in this world "after his kind"or"after their kind" you see God made much of the life in this world after the life that had lived in the former world that perished.You can read Genesis 1 if you want to see what I mean.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Evolution would be the definition for evolution by scientists which is a certain group of life evolving and changing into other kinds of life over time.

Said no professional scientist in a relative field ever. Inferno was right, you don't understand even the basics of evolution. I find this a bit puzzling, since most people can understand the basic tenets of beliefs even if they don't hold them (for example I know the basic, general, dogmas of christianity even if I don't believe them) but evolution deniers usually don't even get the basics right with evolution. I wonder why this is.

abelcainsbrother wrote:It means that God made the life in this world "after his kind"or"after their kind" you see God made much of the life in this world after the life that had lived in the former world that perished.You can read Genesis 1 if you want to see what I mean.

So you don't know what a "kind" is either. Don't worry, most people who use the word don't. I've seen it used to refer anything from a species to an order.

I'm getting tired of seeing this illiterate nutbag spraying his drooling encephalitic subnormality all over the forum. There is no discussion between him and any one else, he doesn't know what any of the words mean, he's impervious to reason, evidence or argument. He fails to reckognise any fallacies in his own thinking and doesn't understand even the simplest points. He can barely express his own views coherently and is even worse at comprehending what other people write.

He just blindly and mindlessly makes empty statements as if they were unassailable facts.

Allow me to reproduce his total contribution to the forum in succinct form: That doesn't prove life evolves. It's just assumption. That isn't evidence life evolves. Microevolution isn't evolution. Algea+algea=algea, dog+dog=dog. Goddidit. Jesus is lord! [insert bible quote].

It means that God made the life in this world "after his kind"or"after their kind" you see God made much of the life in this world after the life that had lived in the former world that perished.You can read Genesis 1 if you want to see what I mean.

No, no, no, no! You don't get to get away with it. You haven't answered what do you mean by "kind".I asked it for a reason, it is not just some trivial point, there is something very important that you need to learn here if you answer it honestly.

So again what do you mean by "kind"?

"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!

Rumraket wrote:I'm getting tired of seeing this illiterate nutbag spraying his drooling encephalitic subnormality all over the forum. There is no discussion between him and any one else, he doesn't know what any of the words mean, he's impervious to reason, evidence or argument. He fails to reckognise any fallacies in his own thinking and doesn't understand even the simplest points. He can barely express his own views coherently and is even worse at comprehending what other people write.

He just blindly and mindlessly makes empty statements as if they were unassailable facts.

Allow me to reproduce his total contribution to the forum in succinct form: That doesn't prove life evolves. It's just assumption. That isn't evidence life evolves. Microevolution isn't evolution. Algea+algea=algea, dog+dog=dog. Goddidit. Jesus is lord! [insert bible quote].

I understand you clearly and what you write but you are just preaching evolution is true.I have showed you and explained to you why the evidence for evolution only shows reproduction or adaptation,not life evolving and yet you know it is true but don't want to change your mind.There is no evidence you can present in science that demonstrates life evolves.Look at the evidence again yourself and all you'll see is reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves but the rest is assumed true by you and scientists.

It means that God made the life in this world "after his kind"or"after their kind" you see God made much of the life in this world after the life that had lived in the former world that perished.You can read Genesis 1 if you want to see what I mean.

No, no, no, no! You don't get to get away with it. You haven't answered what do you mean by "kind".I asked it for a reason, it is not just some trivial point, there is something very important that you need to learn here if you answer it honestly.

So again what do you mean by "kind"?[/quote]

If that is your hang up about creationism because you can't understand what different kinds of life means well you should have many,many more hangups when it comes to evidence life evolves.You need to deal with the lack of evidence life evolves first IMO.

Abel, either you really don't actually read any responses on here or you are being disingenuous.

"Kind" as used in creationist literature -- and by extension your posts here -- is not defined in a coherent way. You are effectively claiming, "no organism of one kind can have a descendent of a different kind." If you can define "kind" so that one can pick two organisms and reliably tell if they are the same "kind" or not this can be tested. If you cannot define it then how do you have any basis for thinking that it is true?

Mostly creationists try to avoid defining it because when they do people find examples that violate their rules.

If you actually think you know something, define "kind".

"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi

SpecialFrog wrote:Abel, either you really don't actually read any responses on here or you are being disingenuous.

"Kind" as used in creationist literature -- and by extension your posts here -- is not defined in a coherent way. You are effectively claiming, "no organism of one kind can have a descendent of a different kind." If you can define "kind" so that one can pick two organisms and reliably tell if they are the same "kind" or not this can be tested. If you cannot define it then how do you have any basis for thinking that it is true?

Mostly creationists try to avoid defining it because when they do people find examples that violate their rules.

If you actually think you know something, define "kind".

First off I'm not exactly looking at kinds like most do you see it is overlooked by many that God in Genesis 1 made the life in this world "after his kind"or "after their kind" this gets skimmed over by most but God made "after their kind" this is pointing to the kinds of life that existed in the former world and saying that God made the life in this world after the kind of life in the former world but then God also made it to where the kinds of life in this world produces after its kind too and this is reality what everybody can see and observe.A " kind" is a certain kind of life that produces its own kind.It is not really hard to understand.

Also do not look at the many different kinds of life from a perspective that believes life evolves,evolution messes you up to what we see and observe around us.Just look out around you and see the many different kinds of life producing after their kind.I realize it can get tricky some times but the reality is kinds produce after their kind,no matter what kind of life it is.Foxes produce foxes,etc.

SpecialFrog wrote:Abel, either you really don't actually read any responses on here or you are being disingenuous.

"Kind" as used in creationist literature -- and by extension your posts here -- is not defined in a coherent way. You are effectively claiming, "no organism of one kind can have a descendent of a different kind." If you can define "kind" so that one can pick two organisms and reliably tell if they are the same "kind" or not this can be tested. If you cannot define it then how do you have any basis for thinking that it is true?

Mostly creationists try to avoid defining it because when they do people find examples that violate their rules.

If you actually think you know something, define "kind".

First off I'm not exactly looking at kinds like most do you see it is overlooked by many that God in Genesis 1 made the life in this world "after his kind"or "after their kind" this gets skimmed over by most but God made "after their kind" this is pointing to the kinds of life that existed in the former world and saying that God made the life in this world after the kind of life in the former world but then God also made it to where the kinds of life in this world produces after its kind too and this is reality what everybody can see and observe.A " kind" is a certain kind of life that produces its own kind.It is not really hard to understand.

Also do not look at the many different kinds of life from a perspective that believes life evolves,evolution messes you up to what we see and observe around us.Just look out around you and see the many different kinds of life producing after their kind.I realize it can get tricky some times but the reality is kinds produce after their kind,no matter what kind of life it is.Foxes produce foxes,etc.

Your definition is still wishy washy and circular. It appears to me you have pulled it out of your arse and basically said a kind is whatever you decide a kind is. I can't remember the last time I saw circular definition used in science.

abelcainsbrother wrote:If that is your hang up about creationism because you can't understand what different kinds of life means well you should have many,many more hangups when it comes to evidence life evolves.You need to deal with the lack of evidence life evolves first IMO.

I'm not letting you get away with it. You haven't defined what a "kind" is.You present this "kind" as cop out in order for you to define evolution as any absurdity you wish.When you use a term such as "kinds" (that it is not generally used, it's not precise or scientifically defined, it does not have an exact meaning), in order to describe something. It immediately begs the question of what exactly "kinds" is. It is a fair question. It is a question that should be answered if you want to proceed into having a meaningful conversation. And if you know what you are talking about when you say kinds, there shouldn't be any reason why it poses to much resistance for you to give a direct answer. If you think that it is obvious, then entertain us, just state the obvious for us.

There are so many times that you can refuse to answer this question, at witch point I will be happy do define it for you.

So again what do you mean by "kinds"?

As a side note:Or you can just state that you can't. We both, know that this is not a matter that you won't answer the question, but rather that you can't do it without sounding unintelligible.There is a reason why you can't, hence the reason why i'm asking. I just want you to realize this, so that we can move on to other matters to help explain why your preconception about evolution isn't correct.

"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!